The short term motivation of Labor and FWA has been to delay the prosecution of Craig Thomson so as to prevent the loss of one crucial seat in the lower house.

The short term gain is almost certainly going to come with long term pain, as the member for Dobell faces criminal investigation and charges. While the PM and cabinet are presently suffering in polls from a voter lack of trust, a slow grinding reminder of Labor corruption, cover up, and sleaze is sure to torpedo any rehabilitation of the Labor brand.

When Julia Gillard asks "Who do you trust?" She won't like the answer.

SM, it will be as you say, if one important alleged fact is true.

If Mr. Thompsin is guilty as you obviously believe, without a charge or conviction, it may reflect badly on the PM.

If it is found he is innocence, the Opposition will have egg on it's face.

This is why we believe in the presumption of innocence.

It is to allow due process.

There is a possible reason that the enquiry has taken the length of time it has.

It could be firstly that it is not a open and shut case. Secondly it could be that the FWA investigation has unearth much more important and serious breaches of the law beyond the allegations against Mr. Thompson.

The allegations made against Mr. Thompson could be questionable.

Just to make it clear. I AM NOT DEFENDING OR SAYING MR THOMPSON IS INNOCENCE.

I am saying at this time, no one knows.

Dear Flo,

Apparently the Coalition, the Murdoch Press, and
Shadow Minister, are either privy to more information then
the rest of us or they believe in stirring the pot for their
own politican gains. Either way - "wedge politics" is the
name of their game.

I would like it explained what the sleaze factor is. That is a kangaroo court judgement, by any making.
No doubt this has come from the Abbott noalition.
The author seems to agree that there is a guilty offense, preempting any due course to be taken.
For months the noalition have trying to disrupt the workings of an independent body, and now an obvious guilty verdict has been presumed by the author.
I find the said SLEEZE factor leveled at anyone, extremely disappointing , without any proof of guilt.
The author should be disgraced for such an unprovoked attack, against an elected politician

I have no doubt the bloke is guilty.
As guilty as SM is of using any and every thing to slander the ALP.
I am bound to defend unionism, not in this case.
No union should be charged with so many faults.
But the FWA is an independent body,no one should control its deliberations or out comes.
Much of what SM says is unproven, manufactured.
And know, much of what this opposition is saying is just the same.
However in defending any one who is found guilty we would be betraying every member of this union.

Of course everyone is making a kangaroo judgment.
What else could be expected after such a delay followed after a lot
of embarrassing obscuration, refusal to co-operate with police and now
to top it off delivery to the prosecution office of a jumble of
documents and no legal brief.

Not even Sir Humphrey could have done as well !

And you wonder why people are skeptical !

The presumption of innocence is a criminal trial requirement, to allow due process. It is not an immunity from civil claims or media commentary.

What we know is that prostitutes were purchased using his credit card, with his signature, and drivers license as proof of identity. We also know that Thomson and Williamson gave a contract to a PR firm for substantial kickbacks. This has been published in the Fairfax media (not Newscorp) and Thomson challenged this in court and lost.

According to your way of thinking, Hitler is innocent.

A few years ago Matt Birney (State Liberal mp) was hounded by the ABC over some very trivial matters (compared with those of Craig Thomson) and caved in and resigned. Now it appears to any fair minded person that Craig Thompson's union credit card was used to abuse girls through prostitution. The double standards of our public broadcasters trying to protect the Government and themselves is beyond a joke. Thankfully the polling reflects the views of what the public think of a Government that has no equal when it comes to sleaze. Don't forget this is also Oakshott and Windsors concept of open and accountable Government.

As usual, I'm with Runner on this.

Following due process, and presumption of innocence - yes, indeed.

But also, Julia, remember that justice delayed is justice denied, in the court of the electorate.

Joe

No legal brief, so give the man doubt of guilt. Maybe the happenings were that inconclusive, it takes a DPP to try and unravel it.
Which ever way it is, impatience from the noalition will get nowhere.

As we all know media ownership in Australia is
notoriously narrow. Mainstream media offers
precious little diversity, and such diversity
as there is runs along predictable lines.
And also as we see regularly - the internet
also offers a vast supply - especially of
opinion. To dive into that pool to learn
something different is to risk drowning.

Who knows what the end result of Mr Thomson's
case will be. We have to wait and see. He hasn't
been charged with anything yet - and no-one is
suggesting immunity from criminal charges if
he is found to be guilty. Judgements shouldn't
be made ahead of time.

I believe the Coalition are going so strongly after Mr Thomson simply to bring down the Government. Where was all their outrage when one of their own was found guilty of assault (an act of violence), with no conviction recorded. Oh, yes, that wouldn't have made any difference to the numbers, because she was a Senator.

The names of the persons to whom this report refer should be kept confidential until it is proven that charges should be laid. Only then should the names be made public. Courts provide this for other criminal elements, why not these people?

"According to your way of thinking, Hitler is innocent."

And on a local scale Joh Bjelki-Petersen and Russ Hinze were never convicted. Joh went to trial and was acquitted, Russ didn't live long enough to face trial so we'll never know.

Now I wonder how many who make a point of the lack of a conviction regarding Craig Thomson's innocence are as particular when they hear of Joh or Russ accused of being corrupt.

In a legal sense they were both innocent, I suspect that a lot of people believe otherwise.

There does seem to be a lot of stalling, bumbling and secrecy in this instance. Regardless of the truth of Thomson's innocence or otherwise those who should be dealing with it don't appear to bothered by how the handling of the issue looks to the public.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I guess that's because quite a few people are so
sick and tired of the lack of diversity
in the partisan media's reportage. And such
diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines.

Craig Thomson is an innocent man being crucified by the media to suit the liberal party.

Give it a rest.

Dearest Lexi,

In that case, thank god for the media. Seriously, where would we be without it ? Warts and all ?

Let's presume from now on that Thomson is innocent, but that there are a lot of issues that have to be cleared up, that are unfairly weighing on his career.

IF he is innocent, why would the Government move so slowly to push things along ? Why isn't it coming down heavy on FWA to get its act together, prepare a proper brief or whatever, put it in the hands of the DPP and get the whole thing over with - find Thomson innocent, shove it up the Libs and move on ?

If he was innocent, wouldn't he be in a hurry to clear it all up ? Woulnd't he be a bit indignant that the authorities seem to be stuffing it all up, and mucking him around, sullying his good name in the process ?

As an innocent man, under a cloud of suspicion, Thomson should be demanding his day in court, and ASAP. Gillard should surely be impatient, even furious, at the delays, which make her government stink that little bit worse wit hevery passing day.

Questions: who seems to be wanting to delay justice in this case ? Who seems to be wanting to speed it up ?

IF Thomson is innocent, won't there be egg on Abbott's face when it all comes out ? Won't that put Senator Brandis back in his box ? Won't that be a boost in the polls for Labor ?

So why the delay ?

Love,

Joe

That has got to be in the same as putting pressure on the treasury.
Doesn't being Free of govt; mean anything, not for the noalition.
You lot want to break every rule in the book, for what.
The noalition don't have scruples, anything, by fair means or fowl, it doesn't matter.
When a body is independent it means it can not be persuaded, if it is it is corrupt.

Craig Thomson is a ripped off the HSU and his low paid members, and if he feels slighted, he is free to try and sue me. Considering that he tried to sue the SMH and got his butt kicked, I doubt he would be stupid enough to try.

The ACTU thinks he is a crook and has suspended the HSU for his corruption and because they can't stand to be tainted by his corruption.

For Juliar, ripping off the voter is par for the course.

Hi 579,

Don't you think you are pre-judging the Noalition somewhat ?

And the noun derived from 'pre-judging' is .... ?

I think it's 'prejudice'.

'By fair means or foul' ? Which do you think it might be in this case, in relation to the government's response ?

Who wants this matter expedited ? Who wants it delayed ?

Who wants it sorted ? Who wants it buried ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe you are putting in words that do not exist.
Every one wants this cleared up one way or the other.
How do you tell an independent body what to do, if you can do that you may as well tell them the expected verdict.
Tony, has been pushing for just that, for months.
The noalition already have the noos around his neck, but they don't know what for.
The ## union have been suspended, pending further outcome.
Thompson says he is innocent, and putting it to the DPP suggests he could be right, or it's not that clear cut.
Because someone has your credit card, and drivers license for ID, doesn't make you guilty of what this particular investigation was about.

Hi 579,

As you write,

"Because someone has your credit card, and drivers license for ID, doesn't make you guilty of what this particular investigation was about."

Exactly ! If I thought some b@stard, who looked the spitting image of me, and had stolen my credit card AND my driver's licence out of my house while I was out getting a carton of milk, rushed off to some brothel, found relief and THEN paid for it all with MY credit card, showing MY driver's licence as proof of identity, THEN rushed back to my place before I came home and put my credit card and driver's licence back where he had found it - I would be pretty pissed off too. I would be wanting to speed up this whole circus, to prove my obvious innocence.

My heart goes out to Craig Thomson, so maligned without the slightest shred of evidence, except for this 'spitting image' thing. And the credit card thing. And the driver's licence thing too. Such bad luck, such an obvious case of mistaken identity.

And, I agree, isn't it all obvious that the Noalition have cooked all of this up ? I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that THEY hired some look-alike thief to frame poor Craig Thomson. That makes so much sense ......

Cheers,

Joe

If I have to go to court I would be praying like mad that 579 is the judge. Then again I think their are many judges already that allow the guilty off unless its a politically sensitive issue.

Marilyn Shepherd wrote 'Craig Thomson is an innocent man being crucified by the media to suit the liberal party'.

Is this an example of the sort of stupid ideas circulating the Barossa Valley, that compells this Sunday Mail crackpot poster to inflict her ultra-biased feminazi greenie ideas on this forum?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't have the answers for you regarding
Craig Thomson and all any of us can do
is speculate. Some day, I dare say the
truth will finally come out - as it did
with AWB and Tampa and quite a few others.
In the case of Mr Thomson - I think it
doesn't matter to some people the guilt or
innocence of Mr Thomson. What matters is that
the issue can be used as a bludgeon with which
to renew the attack on the current government -
and the PM's character.

Lexi my darling,

Then the quicker Gillard can get this matter expedited, ther better for her and for the government.

Unless of course .....

Love forever,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

If the PM interfered in this matter - the
Coalition would then accuse her of "interfering."
Or trying to influence the verdict, et cetera.
The matter should stay out of the PM's hands.
And go according to the letter of the law.

No matter what is done, how long it takes, there
will always be people who won't be happy.
I'm sure that if the PM could suddenly walk on
water - there'd be news headlines stating -
"See, the PM can't swim!"

A guy gets his credit card and drivers license stolen more than once and then returned to him by an unknown party without him even knowing; it's used to pay for whores with money that doesn't belong to him and people on here reckon his innocent?

And then you all whinge when some crim gets off with a light sentence for raping a 3 year old?

Shakes head in absolute amazement!

This will not bring down the Gillard Govt,since it will take yrs for the trial to eventuate.Just another nail in the coffin of treacherous Labor but alas the damage is already done.History repeats yet again.

Many of the infringements relate to minor incursions such as that around how to conduct proper meetings but there are also issues around misuse of funds including some mentioned in The Age article.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/thomson-inquiry-misfires-20120404-1wdaf.html

If one believes generally what the media has written about this it would seem many of the various organisations involved are unaware of the judicial and investigative responsibilities in relation to the matter.

Unlike the Cole Inquiry the public will no doubt eventually be privy to all the circumstances in the Thomson affair, especially when the interest in the case is no longer influenced by minority government interests on both sides

579,

They not only had his credit card, forged his signature (that a forensic expert claims is from Thomson) but also looks identical to his driver's license. And I forgot. He phoned the brothel from the hotel room that Thomson admits staying at.

Now because of his actions the HSU has been expelled from the ACTU and is at risk of being de registered.

Thomson is not innocent, not by any standards. The only reason he is not in jail is because Juliar and her cronies at FWA are protecting him.

Now, Craig Thompson may well be innocent, he might have repaid the
money he spent on the credit card.
I just wonder if he had repaid the money whether the FWA would have
been so slow in resolving the matter.

The circumstances surrounding the way the FWA has handled the matter
is more important than whatever Thompson may have done.
It suggests corruption on the basic of
"wink wink knudge knudge say no more".

This is a far more insidious form of corruption than if money passed.

It seems to me that there is currently two laws in this country. One for the Coalition, where a member can be found guilty of a physical crime, but get off without conviction recorded. Another for Labor where a member is considered to be guilty without opportunity to prove innocence.

Shame on Australia for being so two-faced in legal matters.

...This Federal Government rots in the paddock with the dead sheep from last years muster. The current Labor government would surely rate as one of the most inept and unpredictable in the history of Australian politics. With a fresh breed of blow flies now circling the rotting carcass of Labor, from the “stinking” Thompson affair; Thompson himself further exacerbates the fall-out from his high profile crime spree, and infects the surrounding air by the addition of cowardice, to his un-circumspect behaviour.

...I give top marks to the ACTU for their move though, to urgently distance the organisation from the affair, by suspending the HSU from ACTU affiliation.

...Obviously the Thompson affair has crashed any credibility that FWA may be free-standing and independent from Government manipulation, (Irrespective of Gillards claim to the contrary). The evidence of the "Fact" is in the inordinate time it took to process its investigation into the operations of the HSU executive: That point alone challenges the theory of independence, "But there's more"; added to the "Fact" of delay in process, in the end, the FWA inquiry floundered around with the legal acceptability of the results; effectively sidelining any hope of the DPP to challenge possible criminal dealings of the executive of the HSU, past and present, (including Thompson), with an eventual outcome of fundamental mal-process of documentation.

...“Blind Freddy” would NOT accept this masterstroke of ineptitude as accidental: Yet Gillard goes on the “defensive” with a blatant lie, claiming against all the obvious evidence, that the FWA is independent!

...Two things must urgently happen:

1. Thompson must resign immediately.
2. Abbott must call for a double dissolution of parliament, if Thompson refuses the call, (against the odds of success).

...The second move will give Abbott the credibility he needs on this issue, and offer honourable Labor MP’s a chance to jump the sinking stinking ship of Gillards Labor “Chinese Junk” ship of Government.

Only a very blind person could not see the difference between a woman who suffered the humilation of a petty crime and faced the courts and a Government that at State and Federal level stoops to the lowest levels possible to cling to power. Talk about denial Thankfully the voters are so naive or deceived.

NB,

Making the hard decisions is one thing. Decisions that are unpopular because you lied to the voters is not something to be proud of.

SM:

...The “sordid” Thompson affair goes terribly wrong on so many levels, and crosses the threshold of “The Australian Way”. Thompson (under normal circumstances), would resign at the point of exposure of the credit card abuse. But to abuse a union credit card for the purposes of prostitution is a reprehensible act of dishonesty. Dishonesty is totally unacceptable in the higher order of Politics, and there are very accepted norms to follow for those MP’s who transgress; “resign”!

...Then follows the lies and the cover-ups: If Gillard cannot be trusted with the truth, she should resign. Ample opportunity was presented to her during the recent leadership challenge by Rudd to do so, with a degree of honour intact. I believe at this point, Gillard exposed her true colours again, by clinging to her personal megalomaniac need for power; a power and control which usurps all honour and truthfulness obviously, and extends her selfish needs above the “rights” of the electorate to an expectation of political integrity from elected officials, including first and foremost, “honesty”.

...I add the Thompson affair to the Andrew Wilkie affair: Another double-cross of monumental proportions by Gillard. Difficult it was to agree in total with Andrew Wilkie on his poker machine reforms, but I considered his arbitrary shafting by Gillard, following Slippers treachery, as more evidence of Gillards ease to treat the Australian people with the same degree of contempt she holds for Wilkie. A contemptuousness betraying natural expectations of trust shattered by Gillard, when time and convenience converge.

Gillard has proved herself once again capable of pathological reprehensibility and should "GO".

"Thompson must resign immediately.
2. Abbott must call for a double dissolution of parliament, if Thompson refuses the call, (against the odds of success)"

Mr. Thompson does not have to resign, unless he is sentence to more that a year's jail. That has not occurred at this time.

There are no grounds for a double dissolution.

Contrary to the belief of many, Mr. Abbott has to observe the Constitution, along with every other person in this great land of ours.

He is not what he believes himself to be, a law unto himself.

Don't talk silly Flo. Abbot knows he cannot call for double disolution
as it stands now. Also it is obvious that Thompson will not resign as
that would mean grid lock in the house.

Until gridlock occurs nothing can be done unless one of the
independants gets a rush of blood to the head or someone falls under a bus.
I think the PM is thinking how lucky she is that there is no way she
can intervene, although I suspect that something could be done by
removing FWA's funding if they really wanted to get it settled.
Which of course they don't.

That is the crux of the matter;
The government does not want to find a mechanism and anyone who
suggested a way would get smacked down very smartly.

We all know what is going on so it is silly for anyone to pretend
that you don't.

...I weep for Labor supporters FLO. But I have collected a few synonyms of the adjective “Inordinate”. I wish you to be honest with your contemplations on the issue of Labor credibility, when assessing the appropriateness and applicability of Gillards Labor, to this wonderfully descriptive word “inordinate”.

…disproportionate, dizzying, exorbitant, extortionate, extreme, gratuitous, immoderate, intemperate, irrational, outrageous, overindulgent, overmuch, preposterous, supererogatory, superfluous, surplus, too much, towering, uncalled-for, unconscionable, uncurbed, undue, unmeasurable, unreasonable, unrestrained, untempered, unwarranted, wanton, wasteful…

Sorry Flo…I imply no fault or blame that should rest at your own feet for the Labor mess of lies and deception.

Dear Flo,

Thank You for your usual well-reasoned posts.
It's always good to receive some balance on
this forum. I've come across an interesting
link that may be of some interest to you.
Of course I shall be accused of using a "biased"
link because it won't suit the political inclinations
of some people who prefer the sensational tabloids.
However, I think it presents the pros and cons of
the issue extremely well - and does try to maintain
a balanced view point.

http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/05/scandal-just-wont-die

Dearest Lexi,

Let's turn this around. Imagine:

* a NSW National Party senator is accused of being involved in the sexual abuse of under-age Aboriginal girls by a group of truckies in his home area. Evidence: his parliamentary credit card was used to pay for sex and for the hire of motel rooms in the area where the abuse is occurring. He was absent from his home and electoral office on the days and nights when the motel rooms were booked.

He strenuously denies any wrong-doing: someone impersonated him, he says. Sounds fair enough, it could happen. The O'Farrell government orders an investigation by a special police unit, which takes, say, three years to complete its investigation. The report is referred to the relevant authorities but is sent back because it did not have the proper paper clips.

I'm sure that you would agree, Lexi, that even in this hypothetical case, this NP senator should have his day in court, to clear his name from these vile crimes. He should he considered innocent until the unlikely event that he is found guilty of a string of offenses arising from these acts, which could total more than a year's jail. There are complications in this case, which necessitate the three years' investigation. Justice has to be thorough so its wheels may grind slowly.

To get back to reality: my vote has always - eventually - gone to Labor. But until this affair is settled, I am voting 'Informal' - I still can't bring myself to vote AGAINST Labor, but I'm not a complete mug either :)

Love,

Joe

Lexi,

Many of the points in the article you linked, I brought up previously, "the tortuous investigations have had the effect of a slow drip of bad news. Given how unpopular this government is, that’s no help to Labor’s rapidly diminishing re-election prospects." however, as I don't publish in the NM, my views don't count. The bias here though is still palpable, considering that Ben understates the facts that "a union credit card was misused" and that there is no smoking gun.

Ben is also a little optimistic: "The Thomson affair will therefore rumble on. While it does so, it will continue to inflict low-level damage to Labor’s brand, without bringing down the government". As the information coming out of the scandal, including the Tempe report soon to be released gets worse, and the ACTU and everyone else backs away from Thomson, Juliar will be his sole supporter, and will be fully bathed in his stench.

If there is any hope that Labor has that this will go away, Brandis will ensure that it is front and foremost at every important point, and at the next election.

The ACTU has backed away from Thompson, He hasn't had anything to do with union for years.
The evidence if any has passed on to the DPP. So we will just have to wait and see where it goes from there.
There is no guarantee Thompson will even get a mention.
Any misuse of credit card, is half baked unless evidence of moneys not being repaid into union funds is found.
Because a credit card was used for prostitution, is not illegal.
It may have been used for bying a pie also, but that would not sound as good as being used for prostitutes.
With an absence of a brief may suggests no outstanding moneys owing.
I can not see anyone claim innocence for so long without good reason

Hi 579,

You might be onto something here:

"I can not see anyone claim innocence for so long without good reason .... "

Yeah ! If someone says they are innocent, and keeps saying it, then yeah, they are very likely to be innocent. You know it makes sense.

And anyway, he hasn't been found guilty yet, so he must be innocent.

And anyway, like you say, it's not illegal for an MP to spend $ 150,000 on prostitutes. It could have been his own money, after all - all that overtime as an MP.

If anything, we should be admiring his Herculean stamina.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear SM,

Thank You for taking a more balanced view of this issue
this time. However, as I've stated previously - this is
a gift to the Coalition - and its a shame that a brilliant
brain like Brandis has to sink so low as to try to
bring down the government. After all Mr Abbott is determined
to have an election sooner rather then later. "Wedge politics"
is the name of the game.

Let them protect Craig,it will only bury labor deeper in their grave and hopefully and new party will rise out of their ashes.They don't deserve to exist let alone Govern.

Now you are being silly Lexi.
Of course Brandis is going to try and bring down the government.
For your information he is a member of the opposition.
That being so that is his job, as it is for all opposition members.
After all there are more LibNat members than Labour members.

Lexi,

I appreciate your pain, but to say that Brandis has sunk low because he is exposing union and Labor corruption is more than a little naive. As a member of the opposition it is his job to bring them down, as did Labor when it was in opposition.

579,

Get with the program, Thompson then signed off the credit card expense as a business expense, which is the point at which the fraud occurred.

Dear SM,

Please explain just how Mr Brandis is exposing
corruption? To what information does he have
access that nobody else does? We're simply
under the impression that Mr Brandis is going
in, boots and all, - with very little evidence
as yet - unless of course one counts conjecture,
and speculation. I am full aware of the role of
the Opposition in Parliament. But this doesn't
exclude politicians from behaving in a civil
manner. And currently he appears to be behaving
like a thug. Which as I stated earlier - is a
shame for such a legal mind as his.

Lexi,

Labor, and its union buddies in the FWA were desperately trying to bury the issue, and I believe that with out Brandis's activism FWA would have never finished their investigation. Brandis has simply shown persistence as did Bernie Banton.

Corruption flourishes in the dark, and Brandis has simply kept the light firmly focussed. There now appears to be some indication that Williamson and Thomson will get the justice they deserve. That Williamson is still being paid $300 000 p.a. from union dues is disgusting.

If you are trying to claim that there is little evidence then you are extremely naive.

This is a wider issue than Thompson, He may not get a mention, Williamson, is still getting payd, because as yet he is still innocent.
Some say they are all guilty, but they don't know what of.
Thompson was expecting it cleared up last week, from the FWA.
Abbott has gone cool on the outcome.
It is not a one man enquiry like he was expecting.
The mad monk has come unstuck before believing what he reads in papers.

You're right, 579,

As long as there hasn't been a trial, Thomson can't be said to be guilty. But as long as there hasn't bee na trial, he hasn't been found not guilty, innocent, either. A trial would clear hus name if he were innocent.

As long as the FWA f@rts around, Thomson can't clear his name. He deserves his day in court. How can the process be expedited ? Nobody is saying 'interference', merely expediting the process. Three years is far too long already.

Cheers,

Joe

Lexi said speaking of Sen Brandis;
And currently he appears to be behaving
like a thug.
>
Really ? He was quite measured in what he said and made suggestions on
How the FWA could have a brief prepared for submission to the DPP.

Lexi, you are destroying your own credibility with statements like that.
It was simply untrue !

And how does Brandis know that. If a brief was that easy, that is what would have been done.
To give all papers of the enquiries to the DPP, suggests a brief of wrongdoings may be very obscure if any.
To give instructions from the sidelines of a confidential process, is somewhat naive.
The DPP will or won't allow a court process to take place, it will only occur if there is sufficient evidence, to proceed.
And if it does proceed it has to be strong enough that a counter court action will not discredit the evidence.

579,
I am no expert in this field but putting together the comments
made on this subject it seems that the DPP need the information in a
particular format, known as a brief.
It does not matter how strong the evidence is it has to be in the
right format in the way it lays out the evidence.
They just don't want to do the law enforcement agencies work for them.
I gather from comments that is what the police do all the time.

Now any government body charged with presenting evidence for
prosecution must surely know that.

As Sen Brandis said they could either do it themselves or engage
solicitors to do it for them.

Very impartial and compliant no doubt. Lets hear what the DPP says.

579,

A brief of evidence is simple. It is a collection of the source documents upon which the conclusions of the report were based. i.e.:

Financial records of payments and receipts, and approvals with signatures.
Contractual documents,
Interview transcripts,

If FWA has done the investigation, then it should have access to all these documents and it should be a simple matter of collating them. A standard practise for most financial investigations.

"If FWA has done the investigation, then it should have access to all these documents and it should be a simple matter of collating them. A standard practise for most financial investigations."

I am sure that FWA knows how to compile a brief of evidence.

The problem is why should they. They do not have the authorization to take criminal matters to court.

They said that they had referred the report to the DPP for advice as to their next action should be.

FWA was very clear that they had not made any decisions in relation to criminal matters, as this is not their jobs. They have the task of dealing with civil matters and taking them the FWA court.

This part of the FWA act was created by Mr. Abbott and transferred to FWA.

There are many different agencies that FWA can refer to. State police, commonwealth police and many other agencies that deal with corporations etc.
What is obvious is that the matters are not open and shut, as the Opposition keeps saying.

What FWA is not there for, to provide Mr. Abbott with the trigger to achieve his obsession in becoming PM.

There are four people involved, not just Mr. Thompson.

There are much more serious charges against another person.

I cannot see the ACTU taking the action they did, on complaints that happened over five years ago, Their concerns have to be current, Mr. Thompson is no longer there, in case no one has noticed.

Mr. Thompson is entitled to the same treatment as everyone else, the presumption of innocence, which our justice system is based on. No ifs, no buts.

Flo,

The FWA was a creation of Juliar, and her alone. Its tribunal is supposed to investigate internal matters within unions, and the only reason to refer any thing to the DPP is to proceed with a prosecution.

Having spent $1m and 3 years all they had was a 1100 page opinion piece.

The requirements were simple, and if the FWA was not competent to do this then there are outside law firms that can do it for far far less than $1m. I believe that FWA is corrupt.

SM, you are wrong. Much if the act was lifted from the previous legislation. That part that states the power of the FWA definitely was.

Sorry, that is a fact.

Then Flo, why did they refuse to cooperate with the police of two states ?
Clearly, they are trying to do everything possible to delay progress
on the matter.

You sound like an ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT monster.

As you say, I would not know but I believe you that they lifted that
part of the legislation out of the old legislation.
Therefore the labour party is responsible for it not Tony Abbott.

Really this denial of reality is truely mind bogling.
Why don't labour people just shut up on this.
When in a hole just stop digging.

Rubbish. They were given legal advice not to do so.

They ask the DPP for their advice.

They are now in the process on deciding what action to take on the reception of the report.

I know one much not criticize Mr. Abbott, but for the love of me, I do not know why.

All I did was state a fact.

The report will be released when the legal process is finished. That is the way things work.

When did you last see the police release their investigations results before they either charged or released there suspect.